The Weekly Standard reported new details today describing how then-CIA Director David Petraeus voiced surprise when he
learned the Saturday after the attack that officials had deleted all
prior references to Al Qaeda and jihadists, leaving only the word
"extremists." US. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice would use the final version of
the talking points to say on several Sunday shows that the attack was
triggered by protests over an anti-Islam film. The maker of that film is the person arrested and currently serving time for events surrounding the jihadi attack on the US consulate and the slaughter of our countrymen.

Greg Hicks, former deputy chief of mission in Libya, said the anti-Islam film was actually a "nonevent" in Libya, and his "jaw dropped" when he heard Rice's comments.

What a coincidence: almost immediately after this, Petraeus' private
life exploded all over the headlines, and he had to resign as director
of the CIA. Surely Barack Obama wouldn't have been trying to get him out
of the way for what he knew about jihadist involvement in the Benghazi
massacres, and Obama's coverup of that involvement -- Barack Obama
wouldn't stoop so low, now, would he?

"The Benghazi Scandal Grows," by Stephen F. Hayes for the Weekly Standard, May 20 (thanks to Anne Crockett):

CIA director David Petraeus was surprised when he read the
freshly rewritten talking points an aide had emailed him in the early
afternoon of Saturday, September 15. One day earlier, analysts with the
CIA’s Office of Terrorism Analysis had drafted a set of unclassified
talking points policymakers could use to discuss the attacks in
Benghazi, Libya. But this new version​—​produced with input from senior
Obama administration policymakers​—​was a shadow of the original.

The original CIA talking points had been blunt: The assault
on U.S. facilities in Benghazi was a terrorist attack conducted by a
large group of Islamic extremists, including some with ties to al Qaeda.

These were strong claims. The CIA usually qualifies its assessments,
providing policymakers a sense of whether the conclusions of its
analysis are offered with “high confidence,” “moderate confidence,” or
“low confidence.” That first draft signaled confidence, even certainty: “We do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda participated in the attack.”

There was good reason for this conviction. Within 24 hours of the
attack, the U.S. government had intercepted communications between two
al Qaeda-linked terrorists discussing the attacks in Benghazi. One of
the jihadists, a member of Ansar al Sharia, reported to the other that
he had participated in the assault on the U.S. diplomatic post. Solid
evidence. And there was more. Later that same day, the CIA station chief
in Libya had sent a memo back to Washington, reporting that
eyewitnesses to the attack said the participants were known jihadists,
with ties to al Qaeda.

Before circulating the talking points to administration policymakers in the early evening of Friday, September 14, CIA
officials changed “Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda” to simply
“Islamic extremists.” But elsewhere, they added new contextual
references to radical Islamists. They noted that initial press
reports pointed to Ansar al Sharia involvement and added a bullet point
highlighting the fact that the agency had warned about another potential
attack on U.S. diplomatic facilities in the region. “On 10 September we
warned of social media reports calling for a demonstration in front of
the [Cairo] Embassy and that jihadists were threatening to break into
the Embassy.” All told, the draft of the CIA talking points that was
sent to top Obama administration officials that Friday evening included
more than a half-dozen references to the enemy​—​al Qaeda, Ansar al
Sharia, jihadists, Islamic extremists, and so on.

The version Petraeus received in his inbox Saturday, however, had
none. The only remaining allusion to the bad guys noted that
“extremists” might have participated in “violent demonstrations.”

In an email at 2:44 p.m. to Chip Walter, head of the CIA’s legislative affairs office, Petraeus
expressed frustration at the new, scrubbed talking points, noting that
they had been stripped of much of the content his agency had provided.
Petraeus noted with evident disappointment that the policymakers had
even taken out the line about the CIA’s warning on Cairo. The CIA
director, long regarded as a team player, declined to pick a fight with
the White House and seemed resigned to the propagation of the
administration’s preferred narrative. The final decisions about what to
tell the American people rest with the national security staff, he
reminded Walter, and not with the CIA.

This candid, real-time assessment from then-CIA director Petraeus
offers a glimpse of what many intelligence officials were saying
privately as top Obama officials set aside the truth about Benghazi and
spun a fanciful tale about a movie that never mattered and a
demonstration that never happened.

“The YouTube video was a nonevent in Libya,” said
Gregory Hicks, a 22-year veteran diplomat and deputy chief of mission at
the U.S. embassy in Tripoli at the time of the attacks, in testimony
before the House Oversight and Reform Committee on May 8. “The only
report that our mission made through every channel was that there had
been an attack on a consulate . . . no protest.”

So how did Jay Carney, Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, Barack
Obama, and others come to sell the country a spurious narrative about a
movie and a protest?

There are still more questions than answers. But one previously
opaque aspect of the Obama administration’s efforts is becoming somewhat
clearer. An email sent to Susan Rice following a key White House
meeting where officials coordinated their public story lays out what
happened in that meeting and offers more clues about who might have
rewritten the talking points....

Comments

Petraeus was frustrated with Benghazi talking points that removed all mention of jihadist involvement

Is it any wonder that Petreaus's private life suddenly exploded?

The Weekly Standard reported new details today describing how then-CIA Director David Petraeus voiced surprise when he
learned the Saturday after the attack that officials had deleted all
prior references to Al Qaeda and jihadists, leaving only the word
"extremists." US. Ambassador to the U.N. Susan Rice would use the final version of
the talking points to say on several Sunday shows that the attack was
triggered by protests over an anti-Islam film. The maker of that film is the person arrested and currently serving time for events surrounding the jihadi attack on the US consulate and the slaughter of our countrymen.

Greg Hicks, former deputy chief of mission in Libya, said the anti-Islam film was actually a "nonevent" in Libya, and his "jaw dropped" when he heard Rice's comments.

What a coincidence: almost immediately after this, Petraeus' private
life exploded all over the headlines, and he had to resign as director
of the CIA. Surely Barack Obama wouldn't have been trying to get him out
of the way for what he knew about jihadist involvement in the Benghazi
massacres, and Obama's coverup of that involvement -- Barack Obama
wouldn't stoop so low, now, would he?

"The Benghazi Scandal Grows," by Stephen F. Hayes for the Weekly Standard, May 20 (thanks to Anne Crockett):

CIA director David Petraeus was surprised when he read the
freshly rewritten talking points an aide had emailed him in the early
afternoon of Saturday, September 15. One day earlier, analysts with the
CIA’s Office of Terrorism Analysis had drafted a set of unclassified
talking points policymakers could use to discuss the attacks in
Benghazi, Libya. But this new version​—​produced with input from senior
Obama administration policymakers​—​was a shadow of the original.

The original CIA talking points had been blunt: The assault
on U.S. facilities in Benghazi was a terrorist attack conducted by a
large group of Islamic extremists, including some with ties to al Qaeda.

These were strong claims. The CIA usually qualifies its assessments,
providing policymakers a sense of whether the conclusions of its
analysis are offered with “high confidence,” “moderate confidence,” or
“low confidence.” That first draft signaled confidence, even certainty: “We do know that Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda participated in the attack.”

There was good reason for this conviction. Within 24 hours of the
attack, the U.S. government had intercepted communications between two
al Qaeda-linked terrorists discussing the attacks in Benghazi. One of
the jihadists, a member of Ansar al Sharia, reported to the other that
he had participated in the assault on the U.S. diplomatic post. Solid
evidence. And there was more. Later that same day, the CIA station chief
in Libya had sent a memo back to Washington, reporting that
eyewitnesses to the attack said the participants were known jihadists,
with ties to al Qaeda.

Before circulating the talking points to administration policymakers in the early evening of Friday, September 14, CIA
officials changed “Islamic extremists with ties to al Qaeda” to simply
“Islamic extremists.” But elsewhere, they added new contextual
references to radical Islamists. They noted that initial press
reports pointed to Ansar al Sharia involvement and added a bullet point
highlighting the fact that the agency had warned about another potential
attack on U.S. diplomatic facilities in the region. “On 10 September we
warned of social media reports calling for a demonstration in front of
the [Cairo] Embassy and that jihadists were threatening to break into
the Embassy.” All told, the draft of the CIA talking points that was
sent to top Obama administration officials that Friday evening included
more than a half-dozen references to the enemy​—​al Qaeda, Ansar al
Sharia, jihadists, Islamic extremists, and so on.

The version Petraeus received in his inbox Saturday, however, had
none. The only remaining allusion to the bad guys noted that
“extremists” might have participated in “violent demonstrations.”

In an email at 2:44 p.m. to Chip Walter, head of the CIA’s legislative affairs office, Petraeus
expressed frustration at the new, scrubbed talking points, noting that
they had been stripped of much of the content his agency had provided.
Petraeus noted with evident disappointment that the policymakers had
even taken out the line about the CIA’s warning on Cairo. The CIA
director, long regarded as a team player, declined to pick a fight with
the White House and seemed resigned to the propagation of the
administration’s preferred narrative. The final decisions about what to
tell the American people rest with the national security staff, he
reminded Walter, and not with the CIA.

This candid, real-time assessment from then-CIA director Petraeus
offers a glimpse of what many intelligence officials were saying
privately as top Obama officials set aside the truth about Benghazi and
spun a fanciful tale about a movie that never mattered and a
demonstration that never happened.

“The YouTube video was a nonevent in Libya,” said
Gregory Hicks, a 22-year veteran diplomat and deputy chief of mission at
the U.S. embassy in Tripoli at the time of the attacks, in testimony
before the House Oversight and Reform Committee on May 8. “The only
report that our mission made through every channel was that there had
been an attack on a consulate . . . no protest.”

So how did Jay Carney, Susan Rice, Hillary Clinton, Barack
Obama, and others come to sell the country a spurious narrative about a
movie and a protest?

There are still more questions than answers. But one previously
opaque aspect of the Obama administration’s efforts is becoming somewhat
clearer. An email sent to Susan Rice following a key White House
meeting where officials coordinated their public story lays out what
happened in that meeting and offers more clues about who might have
rewritten the talking points....